From my experience, some people on this blog comment way too much and take the self moderating responsibility way too seriously. They are like the pharisees and saducees that thought there was no way this Jesus could possibly have a relevant opinion. I went through it in the early days of posting. I was born at osu medical center, but have always loved Michigan, but I couldn't expect anyone here to understand what that's like and many have hated on my name at times even though we all refer to tsio as Ohio now. Fortunately for me, I was able to move to Dallas 2 years ago and am no longer in that hole that is Columbus, and have been to Cowboys Stadium 3 times now in the past year.

But I think that just because the OP wasn't serious doesn't make it okay or harmless. And just because you personally weren't offended [not all women would be, and some can be quite sexist themselves, right? not that you are] doesn't mean that no woman would be offended or would feel unwelcome here because of that kind of comment.

I appreciate your perspective and I just hope that you don't presume to speak for everyone.

But Carolina, you kinda brought it on yourself. You were the one who first went all 6-paragraphs-political in your refute of an article, which you followed up by bitching about being negged. The discussion began with a couple quick little comments "might be a woman, but she'd get paid less" "well this person at Forbes doesn't think so" but you went full on rant.

There's really nothing wrong with your feminist rant, but this isn't the place for that stuff. A good chunk of the people are going to disagree with you, and many of the ones who don't just don't want to hear it.

My one problem with your rant: Nurses are really not undercompensated, on the whole. They get good money, flexible schedules and better than average job security, in addition to outstanding workwear. Most feel that nursing is a great profession, and if anything, men get the short end of the stick here because many feel they can't pursue this job because it's a "woman's job."

No, I went full on "effectively and respectfully argued." I have not flamed or ranted at anyone, I have stuck to the facts and politely asked posters to consider their own comments from the perspective of a female reader. I was flamed in response for doing so yet I have still not responded by flaming. Where's my cookie, eh? :P

I humbly ask you to consider whether you would have still characterized my post as a rant if it was not made in defense of feminism. Again, this may seem harmless to you, but women are frequently accused of "ranting" or "bitching" when they bring any of this stuff up, no matter how polite or respectful they are being towards posters who were neither polite nor respectful in the first place.

>but this isn't the place for that stuff. A good chunk of the people are going to disagree with you, and many of the ones who don't just don't want to hear it.

But it is the place for comments which are sexist in the first place? Would you still feel the same way if it had been a racist comment instead of a sexist one?

I say too bad if someone didn't want to hear what I had to say. Because, you know what? I didn't particularly want to hear blatant sexism on a blog/board that I otherwise love. I ask you to please explain what is wrong with politely confronting such content which is simply not acceptable in the modern world.

>men get the short end of the stick here because many feel they can't pursue this job because it's a "woman's job."

Here's a thought for you: what if patriarchy is harmful towards men in some ways while benefiting them in other ways? My father for instance is completely incapable of expressing any kind of emotion or vulernerability because he was raised to think that would be 'unmanly'. Without getting too personal, I will just state that this has been extremely detrimental to his ability to be a healthy and well-rounded person.

You raise a good point and I'm glad that you did because it encourages people to consider the r̶a̶d̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ not so radical perspective that patriarchy can harm men as well, but I don't think it changes the overall argument. Substitute 'secretary' or 'executive assistant' if you prefer -- there are plenty examples of how "pink-collar" work is paid less than "blue-collar' or "white-collar" work.

And if you really think that "the man who comes up with..." (Rather than person/human being/gender neutral connotation) = "the WHITE man who comes up with..." (Purposefully adding a modifier rather than going for simplicity) then I don't know what to tell you.

>And if you really think that "the man who comes up with..." (Rather than person/human being/gender neutral connotation) = "the WHITE man who comes up with..." (Purposefully adding a modifier rather than going for simplicity) then I don't know what to tell you.

....what?

I wasn't referring to that post as sexist at all. I was referring to the other post where GoY basically said "haha, no woman could invent that".

Which was a... blatantly sexist thing to say.

I don't get why you think I'm being 'sensitive'. I haven't flamed anyone, I've been perfectly polite and reasonable. If someone made a similarly racist comment, you would (rightfully) call them on it. How is this any different?

I'm LOLing (like, the very sad kind of LOLing) that anyone who confronts sexism in a reasonable manner is "ranting", "bitching", or "just being too sensitive". I hope I don't have to explain why I'm rolling my eyes at that.

I'm really not freaking out and I wish you would take my word on this. I'm not smashing my monitor, I'm not calling anyone any names, I'm just asking people "hey, could you not make sexist comments, even jokingly?". This is the year 2013, that is not too much to ask at all.

Humor has no bounds. Only the requirement of funny. Now this board has a few taboos. But it strays on a safer side, and that's fair. But there's a marked difference between making fun of a class and making fun of a stereotype. It may be difficult by person to tell the difference; a sense of humor helps.

Is what people are finding funny. Just because I think that you shouldn't laugh at other people's misforture/mistreatment doesn't make me a jerk. And, laughing at racist/sexist jokes might just be wrong!

That was the original comment that people felt the need to correct him on (though I think the first one was a joke too) and that promoted his tongue-in-cheek response you object to because people were being too sensitive.

And no, if he made a comment in a similar vein he wouldn't be called on it. Him dropping a "white men can't jump" line in a baketball thread isn't going to get anyone up in arms. A multiple post lecture on how "the white man is an inferior athlete..." would.

You're being called sensitive because you can't stop overreacting and are projecting that people are saying you're "bitching" or ranting." When you start feeling offense that's not there, that's the definition of sensitive.

>Him dropping a "white men can't jump" line in a baketball thread isn't going to get anyone up in arms.

I think a more appropriate comparison would be "black men can't play quarterback". You know, because black men, like women and unlike white men, are a historically oppressed group.

And people on this board would (rightfully) criticize anyone who made such a clueless, and yes, harmful comment. In fact, I have seen such comments on this board before and they were negged to oblivion and people told the person making them to screw off in generally much more aggressive terms than anything I said.

I don't think you would laugh at that kind of joke if you were a black highschool quarterback dreaming about one day playing for U of M. I think the joke becomes a lot less funny when you consider it from that perspective, don't you?

Because you don't think "white men can't jump" is just as bad as "black men can't play quarterback."*

But the more apt comparison would him making an innocent comment like "I can't wait till we have a QB like Tom Brady, Chad Henne, or John Wangler again," then someone saying "Or Denard Robinson, Gardner, or Michael Taylor" (making the obvious inference).

Then him saying that, making fun of the fact that someone took it completely out of context and was looking to offended.

(*except of course for the fact that the former is completely true, and the latter isn't).

I get what you're saying, and I even agree with some of it. But this is a sports blog, not a sociology forum (and I have a sociology degree, not that I've ever used it). No one likes sexism any more than racism, but if someone went on a rant (yes, it was) about why racism is bad and why one race is disadvantaged to another, it won't be received well here, especially if it was prompted by a comment that wasn't actually racist to begin with.

Sometimes you need to say you piece and be done with it. We know where you stand on this.

My point is that it's very easy to make fun of dated stereotypes when you are not on the receiving end of them. I politely asked GoY to think about how his joke might sound from the perspective of a woman [many of whom are still taught growing up that their looks are more valuable than their intelligence] and he responded by flaming me and the rest of you responded by negging me. I get that he is an established poster here and I am new [though I have actually lurked for a few years now]. I still expected better from this board and from 2013.

I mean, come on, if Herm doesn't need to resort to sexist jokes, I don't see why anyone else on this board should have an excuse. [har har, am I doing it right?]

Ghost of Yost may be established, but he's become a bit of a whipping boy for his reactionary negativity (at times). No one is defending him because he's been around longer. If anything, his track record probably would hurt him in that way. The fact that people are voting for him in that way probably illustrates that he's not really in the wrong.

Still, terrible news right now for QB depth all the same. Per the Rivals article, Russell and the coaches were aware of the perception that existed after Nebraska and were working very hard with Bellomy, so it's sad that this opportunity will be delayed after a good spring (per Hoke in the article). I wish Bellomy a speedy and full recovery.

"Funny isn't it, how naughty dentists always make that one fatal mistake."

Not like Bellomy was going to play this year unless we were up by 50, at home with 2 minutes on the clock. Shane was always 2nd in line any ways. They just hoped they were never going to play him. Look for a walk on to handle mop up duties. Shane will only be used if Gardiner is seriously hurt (pray that doesn't happen).

I think the coaches lost all confidence in Bellomy in Lincoln. I still think Shane will be number 3 on the depth chart this year barring any serious injuries to Devin. If all goes well, he may still get that red shirt.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the coaches lost all confidence in Bellomy. Many of the fans, sure. But not the coaches. Give me one reason why you think that. Playing Gardner in his place doesn't count because DG is obviously awesome.